Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

[AV1611VET]

Maybe shocked to find that a "God inspired" writing isn't met with glowing praise.

Why "shocked"?

That's nothing new.

The Bible is full of those who didn't meet God's inspired Word with glowing praise.

We call them mission fields.

 

[AG_BIC96]

There is a great deal to unpack here. I hope you will stay with me as I work my way through it.

First, I congratulate you on having made more effort than most creationists on this forum to look at some of the evidence for evolution. That, for me is a large positive. Unfortunately, from here on it is mainly downhill.

I was disappointed by your reaction to criticism. Here is my take on criticism. This afternoon I and a colleague shall be taking a Teams call from a client, for whom we have just completed a training package. In this call he will give us his views on the value of that training and whether or not he wishes to have more from us. It is my earnest hope that he will be not only forthright in his comments, but brutal. I want him to focus on what was wrong with the package, not on what was right. If he holds back then we will find it difficult to make improvements. It can be unpleasant, at the time, to take such criticism, but it is the only effective way I know of to improve. I encourage you to adopt a similar attitude.

For example, as @SelfSim has remarked, you completely failed to structure your writing properly and as others implied you did not state whether or not you wanted an evaluation of your writing, or of the ideas in it, or both. At best that is sloppy, at worst it is rude. Then you make what comes across to me as a petty remark to @Tinker Grey, calling him "buddy", for doing exactly what you appeared to have asked us to do - comment on your writing.

I shall be concentrating on the content of your opening post (OP), but be aware that there are issues with typing, grammar, punctuation and the aforementioned structural failing.

First Paragraph of OP
I don't know how important to your argument is your statement that the supernovaes that produced the dust from which the solar system is composed happened mainly just after the Big Bang. My understanding is that some of that dust has been identified as being more recent and certainly the collapse of the GMC (Giant Molecular Cloud) from which it formed was triggered by a "recent" supernovae. Perhaps @sjastro can comment on this.

Second Paragraph of OP
I have never, at any time, place, or publication, seen or heard the Cambrian explosion referred to as the Cambrian or Silurian explosion. Between the end of the Cambrian and the beginning of the Silurian we have around 40 million years of the Ordovician. Perhaps you are confusing the diversification of life forms in the Silurian that followed on from the Ordovician mass extinctions.

The line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is not clear cut. However, characterising the changes that permitted acquatic life to adopt a terrestrial habitat as being an example of micro-evolution is stretching the meaning far beyond breaking point. If you disagree please present an argument, in your own words, justifying this assertion. If you cannot do so please acknowledge that the application of micro-evolution in this instance was wrong.

You are correct that all evolution occurs on a microscopic scale, just as a marathon occurs one stride at a time, but after 30 or 40,000 strides you have run 26 miles, 385 yards. And after hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, macroscopic evolution has taken place as is evident from the fossil record and from genetic analysis and new genera, families and even phyla have emerged.

It always bemuses me that creationists have this seeming obsession with Darwin. His brilliant insight and meticulous research was revolutionary, but we have had more than a century and a half since the publication of On the Origin of Species in which tens of thousands of researchers have published hundreds of thousands of theses, journal articles and textbooks on evolution.

It is not true to say that "all life stems from a single point" in the Cambrian. There were around three billion years of evolution that preceded the explosion. Life moved from very simple prokaryotes, simpler than the simplest organism extant today, towards eukaryotes - a vast macro-evolutionary development - around two billion years ago, then to multicellularity and then the emergence of creatures with diversified organs (i.e. animals), no later than 700 million years ago and most probably much earlier. The Ediacaran biota of complex organisms preceded the Cambrian explostion. Your assertion that the explosion was an event, a point in time is incorrect. It was a period of rapid change, but much of the groundwork for those changes had been laid in the previous half billion years, only recognised because of improvements in technology and because we have gone out looking for microfossils and biochemical traces in what had been thought of as barren rock.

You are correct that a great diversification occured in Cambrian times (though you ignore the diversification in the preceding Ediacaran, and in the following Ordovician), but to claim it occured at a point in time and to ignore three billion years of earlier evoutionary steps is simply wrong.

Third Paragraph of OP
OK. Nothing wrong as such here, but I just worry that - as written - you appear to equate arthropods and molluscs as an early form of life, whereas they are incredibly sophisticated and complex animals as far removed from the first proto-cells as you or I. I appreciate that, as a practicing Christian, the concept of the scala naturae may be embedded in your thinking, but unless properly applied that is likely to lead you astray, as it seems to have done here.

Final Paragraph of OP
The two contrasting statements of Aggasiz are the same only to a Christian who is indifferent to whether or not God created life as it is in an instant, or caused it to evolve over time. To a Christian who believes Genesis is the literal truth the two statements are irreconcilable. To a scientifically oriented Christian they will appear incompatible. To a non-Christian the latter one would remain plausible, were it not for the fact they don't think such a God exists. (Those are generalisations - they will not be disproved by anecdotal counter examples,)

It is my opinion that Christianity will enhance its image by distancing itself from the claims of the Discovery Institute. I can develop that point if you wish, but I advise against it.

Contrary to your assertion life is not especially well designed. There are numerous examples. I'll mention one human centred one. Humans can choke on their food if it "goes down the wrong way". Why introduce, by design, such a weakness into humans when it is absent in most animals?

"Random probability" is not the driving force behind evolution. You are attacking a strawman. Natural Selection, and other processes, acting upon organisms whose characteristics have been shaped by genes that have undergone changes due to random probability is the driving force. These processes have been established through the studies of many thousands of researchers in the fields of botany, zoology, biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, ethology, palaeontology and a host more. Hypotheses on the details have been advanced, tested, amended, adapted, combined, and in some instances rejected, leading to a coherent, validated body of evidence, experiment and theory that presents evolution as the best (by far) explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. That is why @The IbanezerScrooge described your last paragraph as "bollocks".

Additional Comment
Finally, elsewhere you assert that a scientist in one field should be able to comment with authority on matters in another field. Nonsense! Perhaps you are familiar with the humerous definition of an expert: someone who knows more and more about less and less. A vulcanologist who has devoted twenty years to the study of carbonatite lavas in East Africa, might feel comfortable discussing eruptive mechanisms of Icelandic lavas with an expert on those. But they would be unlikely to make authoritative claims on the significance of isotope ratios in relation to magma migration from the asthenosphere below Iceland. And that's two experts within not just geology, but a narro subset of geology. You are simply mistaken in this regard.

I was being genuine when I called him buddy not sarcastic, No I will not accept attacks under the guise of criticism there's a way to be critical without assaulting people's character and plain out attacking them. I've never once done that to someone I assess their work first and foremost and would expect others to do the same. If you're analyzing a first time writers work with this level of intense scrutiny on a Christian Forum then so I be it I guess. Is that not a bit harsh though?

 

[AV1611VET]

It becomes lying after your mistakes are pointed out.

No it doesn't.

It becomes "lying" after mistakes are pointed out, and those mistakes are accepted as valid.

You can point out something I said as a mistake, then sit back and expect me to agree with you.

But if I don't accept it, it doesn't mean I'm lying.

I interpret the Bible literally.

Some point out to me that I'm making a mistake.

I don't accept that.

Does that mean I'm now lying?

Failure to listen or investigate is no excuse.

-- That's rich.

How many times have I pointed out here those who don't "investigate before they communicate"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was being genuine when I called him buddy not sarcastic, No I will not accept attacks under the guise of criticism there's a way to be critical without assaulting people's character and plain out attacking them. I've never once done that to someone I assess their work first and foremost and would expect others to do the same. If you're analyzing a first time writers work with this level of intense scrutiny on a Christian Forum then so I be it I guess. Is that not a bit harsh though?

I am curious, after looking through this thread: what exactly are you hoping to get out of people analysing your post? What do you want them to comment on? What criticism/critique are you actually after?

 

[AV1611VET]

God inspired is often indistinguishable from “what I already believe”.

As it should be.

God says X, I read X, and now I believe X.

The inspiration from God came LONG before I was ever born.

 

[AG_BIC96]

Yet you’ve rejected the criticisms levelled at your post.

I've rejected the rude and unhinged attacks towards me in this post. I think that's a better way of putting it. The people who were civil we simply disagreed or I said I would have an open mind and look into the information they presented but if they were being impolite or nasty I'm not going to take that abuse towards me, you are more than welcome to though.

 

[AG_BIC96]

I am curious, after looking through this thread: what exactly are you hoping to get out of people analysing your post? What do you want them to comment on? What criticism/critique are you actually after?

I thought they would comment on the content of a first time writer and have a little grace/leniency given that, I am a first time writer and Christian as well as science enthusiast/hobbyist. I was not expecting to trigger so many ashiest on a Christian Forum or be personally attacked for different beliefs. I also wasn't expecting to get scrutinized for my work so intensely as it's not a scholarly article but something I was considering blogging about that was the intent of the post to gauge an audience. That was something new. I also was looking forward to learning from others and hearing their ideas which I did get the opportunity to see other people view points and they shared differing information on why they had a different outlook, so that was great. I was not expecting a full blown debate but was under the impression that there would be a more likeminded group of people to share with which to some degree there was. That being said I'm happy with the result and will continue trying to pursue writing and be happy in general I got new ideas on where to improve and the type of rebuttal to expect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought they would comment on the content of a first time writer and have a little grace/leniency given that, I am a first time writer and Christian as well as science enthusiast/hobbyist. I was not expecting to trigger so many ashiest on a Christian Forum or be personally attacked for different beliefs. I also wasn't expecting to get scrutinized for my work so intensely as it's not a scholarly article but something I was considering blogging about that was the intent of the post to gauge an audience. That was something new. I also was looking forward to learning from others and hearing their ideas which I did get the opportunity to see other people view points and they shared differing information on why they had a different outlook, so that was great. I was not expecting a full blown debate but was under the impression that there would be a more likeminded group of people to share with which to some degree there was. That being said I'm happy with the result and will continue trying to pursue writing and be happy in general I got new ideas on where to improve and the type of rebuttal to expect.

You didn't give us any hint as to what the purpose of your writing was. It wasn't clear what the first paragraph had to do with evolution, either to to make it compatible with god, or to attack it. (It also misrepresented what physicists and astronomers actually think.)

 

[AG_BIC96]

Then he's a minister of some kind, not an active astronomer.

I disagree he still has the educational background and knowledge and still continues researching although it may not be in the traditional institution that you would approve of. It still does not take away from his credibility as a scientist.

 

[AG_BIC96]

You didn't give us any hint as to what the purpose of your writing was. It wasn't clear what the first paragraph had to do with evolution, either to to make it compatible with god, or to attack it. (It also misrepresented what physicists and astronomers actually think.)

A couple of people have said you misrepresented what physicists and astronomers think, How so?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought they would comment on the content of a first time writer and have a little grace/leniency given that, I am a first time writer and Christian as well as science enthusiast/hobbyist. I was not expecting to trigger so many ashiest on a Christian Forum or be personally attacked for different beliefs. I also wasn't expecting to get scrutinized for my work so intensely as it's not a scholarly article but something I was considering blogging about that was the intent of the post to gauge an audience. That was something new. I also was looking forward to learning from others and hearing their ideas which I did get the opportunity to see other people view points and they shared differing information on why they had a different outlook, so that was great. I was not expecting a full blown debate but was under the impression that there would be a more likeminded group of people to share with which to some degree there was. That being said I'm happy with the result and will continue trying to pursue writing and be happy in general I got new ideas on where to improve and the type of rebuttal to expect.

Yeah, you made a serious mistake: you gave no indication on how you wanted your post to be discussed or critiqued. You just threw it out there with nothing to explain it and then people reacted as they reacted and somehow that's their fault for you saying nothing about what the substance and point of your post was.

If you don't want atheists to comment on it, then don't post it to a subforum that is open to both believers and atheists. That's simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh. About Hong Kong, student achievement far outstrips that of American students because it's a culture
of respect for education.

Good for Hong Kong students.

That means that, for seventy-six years, Hong Kong students were taught that Pluto was our ninth planet; and they believed it out of respect for their "outstripped achievements."

All of it.

Including believing Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug?

Did they believe the Titanic was unsinkable, and had enough life boats for any emergency?

Were any Hongkongers among the more than 11,000 applicants of the NASA Teacher in Space program, that eventually went to Christa McAuliffe?

Critical thinking, say.

Uh-huh. That's putting it mildly.

Writing is only a part of it.

But the biggest part, since everything that goes against the Bible, goes against It only on paper.

And unsurprisingly, yec and other antiscience fundamentalist belief systems draw their strength from the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic / education ladder.

Mark 12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

You educatees can look down on the YECs as "low rungs," but who gives more to God?

Luke 21:1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

 

[AG_BIC96]

Yeah, you made a serious mistake: you gave no indication on how you wanted your post to be discussed or critiqued. You just threw it out there with nothing to explain it and then people reacted as they reacted and somehow that's their fault for you saying nothing about what the substance and point of your post was.

If you don't want atheists to comment on it, then don't post it to a subforum that is open to both believers and atheists. That's simple.

Athiest are not the problem angry and bitter people are. I have little tolerance for people being mean just because they disagree with something or don't like it. There is simply no need for that, You can state why you feel the way you feel but what's the point of being so brutal about it? It does nothing to promote a peaceful discussion about these topics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's all predicated on beliefs that cannot be shown to be true and dismisses what we've actually observed and can show to be true and justify the interpretations that you claim are "unsubstantiated."

You're just wrong.

History is full of what scientists have "actually observed and shown us to be true with their justified interpretations."

And they've been just wrong.

Would you like me to give you some examples?

I didn't think so.

It's too hard to read, isn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Athiest are not the problem angry and bitter people are. I have little tolerance for people being mean just because they disagree with something or don't like it. There is simply no need for that, You can state why you feel the way you feel but what's the point of being so brutal about it? It does nothing to promote a peaceful discussion about these topics.

I legit have no response to that, because I get it, from both sides and it's hard to fully explain why rudeness can be the default.

Either way, I'm gonna bow out now. Your post was... your writing is good, but your really should do more work on the subject matter and what you actually know of it before you say anything more about it.

 

[BCP1928]

I was being genuine when I called him buddy not sarcastic, No I will not accept attacks under the guise of criticism there's a way to be critical without assaulting people's character and plain out attacking them. I've never once done that to someone I assess their work first and foremost and would expect others to do the same. If you're analyzing a first time writers work with this level of intense scrutiny on a Christian Forum then so I be it I guess. Is that not a bit harsh though?

If it is harsh it is because this is a Christian forum. You are basically making a weak theological argument using pseudoscience which you admit you cannot defend on scientific grounds. Not a good look.

 

[AV1611VET]

Plenty of Christians agree with me on this.

Does that help make you secure that you're thinking right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree he still has the educational background and knowledge and still continues researching although it may not be in the traditional institution that you would approve of. It still does not take away from his credibility as a scientist.

Where is that research? I checked ADS and found nothing since at least the early 1980s except his book about religion and astronomy. (It was a little tricky since it is not clear what his middle initial is, so several authors labeled only as "H Ross" might be him, but not all of them.

As for his credibility as a scientist, I've seen Ross talk and he gave that all away for his ministry. Not as fast or as thoroughly as ex-astronomer Jason Lisle did, but Lisle is a champ in the anti-integrity olympics.

 

[BCP1928]

Does that help make you secure that you're thinking right?

No, the purpose is merely to bring to the attention of our new colleague that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God in the minds of most Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the purpose is merely to bring to the attention of our new colleague that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God in the minds of most Christians.

Okay.

Just wondering.